The Family is the greatest threat to the Central State

Sackerson is perfectly correct. The revolution will not happen. The populace will not march on Westminster, MPs will not be hanged from the lamp columns, Mandarins will not be immolated on piles of computer print-outs.  Threats to the power of the Central State from groups of bloggers are risible. Already we can look back at chaps dressing-up in Guy Fawkes costumes and strolling politely around Whitehall as amusing naivety rather than effective political protest. No, the real threat to the Central State comes not from seditious internet cabals but from the humble family.

Whether the government of the day is Labour or Conservative, whether our rule comes from Westminster or Brussels, our rule by a Central State that draws its power from the distortion of the popular will in the realm of equality is the pertinent fact. Everyone believes in equality, and there is no denying the benificent reforming power of the Central State, for example in abolishing slavery, or for emacipating Catholics, and the democratising effects of technology have proven effective in increasing equality of chance for all. But the distortion that sustains the despotism of the Central State is not the equality of chance but the equality of result.

The war between the family and the State is very ancient, wrote Robert Nisbet; when one is strong, the other is generally weak. That black dog Rousseau was so fearful of the countervailing authority of the family that he wanted to take children from their fathers lest they value the authority of the family as greater than the authority of the State, a credo that seems to have found a fertile echo amongst the country’s Directors of Childrens’ Services.

That other black dog John Rawls, the inspiration for Gordon Brown’s take on ‘fairness’ (meaning equality of result) and for Balls’ whole economic policies, also regarded the family as the greatest enemy of a Central State founded on equalitarianism. As Nisbet wrote in ‘The New Despotism‘;

This principle means simply that there shall be no inequalities of “social primary goods” in society unless it can be demonstrated that such inequalities are in the interest of the less advantaged. There must be no differences among individuals in social position, the fruits of knowledge, talent, and enterprise, as well as in income and property, except insofar as superior possession among some can be demonstrated to rebound to the welfare of others. This, succinctly stated, is Rawls’ difference principle.

Liberty for Rawls, as for Rousseau, means not the freedoms, autonomies and immunities that give the family its power, but a mere equal share in something called Liberty that is ‘owned’ by all. For Rawls and Rousseau, as for Brown and Balls, Liberty means Equalitarianism.

Nisbet quotes Shumpeter in reminding us that

… it was not the isolated individual, so dear as an abstract concept to the classical economists, but the household that was the main engine of modern capitalist development. It is not economic man, but quite literally, the head of the household working for the present and future of themembers of his family, and hence saving and investing, in however small degree-who is the central figure in the capitalist drama, as in all earlier forms of economy.

Wherever there is private property there is a strong family system and strong bonds of kinship and clan. The family is the final enclave of political and economic privacy. It is also the final and most formidable barrier against the redistributionism of the Equalitarians. Again to quote Nisbet;

The New Equalitarians of our day seem to detest the central elements of the social bond quite as much as Rousseau did. I refer to the whole tissue of interdependences, interactions, conflicts, coercions, conformities, protections, and disciplines which are the molecules of social order. It is with good reason that our equalitarians detest such interdependences, for, in whatever degree or form, inequality is the essence of the social bond. The vast range of temperaments, minds, motivations, strengths, and desires that exists in any population is nothing if not the stuff of hierarchy. When associations are formed for whatever purpose, cooperation and mutual aid included, inequality is immediately apparent. Even the New Equalitarians would presumably baulk at the thought of holding all musical talents to the same limits; and no doubt they would feel the same way with respect to academic and intellectual talents. It is the “economic” realm that they have in mind. But, as I have said, it is cultural, psychological, and social inequality that galls once equality is declared the ascendant ideal. Rousseau detested the arts and sciences, just as he did all social interdependences, seeing correctly that in these areas inequality is impossible to contain.

Support for the family as an independent baulk to the authority of the Central State and for the rights to private property founded in horizontal ties of clan and kinship comes also from what may be an unexpected quarter; Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum;

Hence we have the family, the “society” of a man’s house – a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State. Consequently, it has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State.

That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty.

The war between the family and the State has been known since the days of the Greek cities, and if it’s any comfort the State has never managed, in 3,000 years, to gain a permanent ascendancy. The family has never been destroyed or supplanted as the most powerful countervailing threat to the State, or as the safe repository of Liberty. If you seek revolution, find it in your own home.

13 comments for “The Family is the greatest threat to the Central State

  1. June 8, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Sackerson is perfectly correct. The revolution will not happen. The populace will not march on Westminster, MPs will not be hanged from the lamp columns, Mandarins will not be immolated on piles of computer print-outs. Threats to the power of the Central State from groups of bloggers are risible.

    So begins this lengthy post, much of which, I must confess passes over my head, and as to the family I will merely suggest (ask), was that not the first casualty of what has occurred?

    I regret to have to remark, that like so much in the MSM that comes from the UK, this post seems to be disconnected from the reality that is Britain’s subjugated status in the present EU.

    In France, Governments are aware that their main legitimacy rests on the power from the mob in the street. Most “so-called” democracies that threw that tag away on joining the EU, had only decades of experience of true independent parliamentary governance behind them, when they gave it all awy by signing up to the Treaty of Rome. Germany took on its present form only after the fall of the Berlin wall.

    So when the EU falls, or totalitarians rule, will Britons meekly accept enslavement?

    How, I wonder, will the Greek family survive the coming decades, when the assets of his country have been sequestered by French, British and German banks? What happened to Greek property rights when an “independent” non-Greek, outside EU body, is authorised to oversee their sale and have the proceeds remitted abroad, never passing through Greece?

    Ireland will be next and then Portugal and thereafter on into Spain and Italy, eventually engulfing France itself.

    Moody’s yesterday warned that Britain’s triple A credit rating was potentially at risk, the whole purpose of austerity thus negated, while a Scottish gas company announced price hikes of 19%, a possibility unthinkable before the hook-up of the complicated administrative racket that is the Bacton Interconnector.

    Tonight a Privy Councillor, will be removed by the Queen. The first time such a thing has happened in 90 years! Some may go to bed thinking, ‘what a terrible pass things have come to when a PC can be thus demeaned to bring himself so low’. Personally I despair, that for 90 years, none of these establishment figures, who have brought the nation to such a sorry state, had for so many decades, never before been found out and forced to quit!

    Revolution may well not arrive in the UK. Scotland may split, the EU fragment, and England as a result left broke in trying to Canute-like hold back these forces. How will the family then survive? John Dryden wrote the following, I find it apt:

    For who can be secure of private right,
    If sovereign sway may be dissolved by might?
    Nor is the people’s judgement always true:
    The most may err as grossly as the few.

    But who knows,Raedwald, you may well be right?

  2. mikebravo
    June 8, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    Fucks sake.
    “MPs will not be hanged from the lamp columns”
    What am I going to do with the 5 miles of piano wire that I just won on ebay?

    • June 9, 2011 at 5:39 am

      😆

    • Lord T
      June 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm

      You won? Have eBay changed then?

  3. June 8, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    Disaster will tend to pull families together more tightly, I’d have thought.

  4. luikkerland
    June 8, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    Unfortunately the type of family (and the community created by the support system of inter-family friendship and business relationship) that threatens the power of the State (by having the potential to be independent of its agencies) has these past 60 years been systematically and deliberately destroyed by government policy – especially with the implementation of the doctrine of Equality.

    The attack on the family is part of a wider assault on Judeo-Christian society. Another target is the property-owning middle class – here is a group of people who are financially capable of independence from the State; to neuter them, the State ties them into the collective through tax, by which they are stripped of their wealth.

    Understanding what the State has done to the Family, and continues to do to the middle classes, I appreciate that the State has made itself a little bit more unassailable in those terms.

    On the other hand, no one can rule out a revolution of the type you describe in the way that you do – or indeed, a revolution that is completely bloodless. It is within the bounds of possibility for people to go without food and become desperate and vent their anger – directed by an inspirational leader – at those who are seen to be causing the suffering. It is within the bounds of possibility for the State to provoke the citizenry by draconian legislation (again organised by great and sudden leadership). It is within the bounds of possibility for a non-LibLabCon political party to threaten the Establishment with the loss of everything it has fed vampirically on and provoke them into a crack-down against the due process that is being used to usurp them.

    • June 9, 2011 at 8:18 am

      “It is within the bounds of possibility for a non-LibLabCon political party to threaten the Establishment with the loss of everything it has fed vampirically on and provoke them into a crack-down against the due process that is being used to usurp them.” I wish!

      But you’re right about the State’s assault on the position of the family. Look at how the child-based benefits sytem supports serial illegitimacy at the expense of informal but lasting monogamy and actual marriage. Look at how the family courts demonise, marginalise and exclude the interests of fathers.
      And look at the cultural branch of the Jokers’ open conspiracy, the mainstream broadcast media, defame the family via UK soap operas where casual adultery and partner-swapping is normalised by itsfrequency and its lack, in many cases, of imediately dire consequences for the children concerned.
      Dads are bad, and that’s that.
      Job done.

  5. Voice of Reason
    June 8, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    Strength of the family is what brings such orderly societies as Afghanistan.

    • June 9, 2011 at 5:51 pm

      Afghanistan doe seem to be a typical Islamic hell-hole, doesn’t it? It’s a clan and tribal structure coupled with the most obscurantist versions of Islam that keeps Afghanisstan in the Dark Ages.
      Marriage for many women in ‘traditional areas’ is more like slavery than being wives we recognise in the Judeo-Christian West.

  6. Sue
    June 9, 2011 at 9:31 am

    As idealistic as this may seem, NuLabour did it’s utmost to destroy the family by ensuring single parents were better off without a spouse being present. They destroyed community essentially with the no smoking ban and their “spy on your neighbours” campaigns and scattered all but the smallest villages by allowing too many foreigners in the country.

    The family you speak of are not your normal working class families.

    May I remind you that is was not families that were responsible for the revolutions of 1989, it was a mass civil resistance.

  7. Jeremy Poynton
    June 9, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Lenin – “Destroy the family and you destroy society”. Certainly, the Blair and Brown years saw an unprecedented attack on the family in the UK, with benefits expressly designed to break families up, and the excessive focus on alternative forms of family – which of course, flies in the face of the the fact the the family and marriage have been the bedrock of stable societies the world over.

  8. WitteringWitney
    June 9, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    Well Raedwald, firstly I have to agree with Ironies Too in that the family was the first casualty of this ‘grand projet’. Families have, for some time, had their views subverted by their own children coming home from school preaching a new creed of enviromentalism, equality and diversity.

    I too believe your theory wrong as eventually, if we are unable to install small government with a dose of “Referalism”, the populace will march on Westminster and MPs most certainly will hang from lamp posts!

  9. June 10, 2011 at 8:16 am

    Liberty for Rawls, as for Rousseau, means not the freedoms, autonomies and immunities that give the family its power, but a mere equal share in something called Liberty that is ‘owned’ by all. For Rawls and Rousseau, as for Brown and Balls, Liberty means Equalitarianism.

    Core false construct. Wonderful article.

Comments are closed.